DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2024 based on the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 21-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,093.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed and covered in the patent ‘093 and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are both claiming common and substantially similar subject matter, including a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit the model of the business process; and a tabular view module programmed to generate a tabular view of at least a portion of the model of the business process. The conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other since substantially similar inventive features are being claimed in both the instant application and the patent ‘093 utilizing equivalent and/or obvious variants of each other.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) Claim 1 recites “a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit … and a tabular view module programmed to generate….”
(b) Claims 2, 13, and 18 recite “a business process model creation module programmed to allow a user to create a new model of a business process; and a business process characterization module that allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized….”
(c) Claim 3 recites “a diagram view module programmed to generate….”
(d) Claim 4 recites “a properties pane module programmed to generate….”
(e) Claims 5, 14, and 19 recite “a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks….”
(f) Claims 6 and 15 recite “an attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks….”
(g) Claims 7, 16, and 20 recite “a task sorting module programmed to sort tasks….”
(h) Claims 8, 9, and 10 recite “a path analysis mode module programmed to display…” and “a path analysis mode module is further programmed to display….”
(i) Claim 11 recites “an MS Project import and export module programmed to: (i) import … and (ii) export….”
(j) Claim 12 recites “a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit … a view module programmed to generate … a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks….”
(k) Claim 17 recites “a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit … a business process view module programmed to generate … an attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks….”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 2, 13, and 18: The claims recite “a business process characterization module that allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized in ways suitable for a collection of interrelated tasks that is designed to be performed repeatedly and further designed to achieve a commonly arising objective or goal.” It is unclear what the applicant is attempting to define as the claimed invention when the limitation recites “characterizing a process in ways suitable for a collection of interrelated tasks.” Accordingly, the limitation renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the limitation as describing a step to include one or more loops of related tasks that are iterated or repeated until a condition is satisfied.
With respect to claim 11: Claim 11 contains the trademark / trade name “MS Project.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Therefore, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In this case, the trademark / trade name is used to identify / describe “a project management software program” (Paragraph 0003) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
With respect to claim 14: The claim recites “a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based on a pattern entered by the user.” Independent claim 12 recites the same limitation. Thus, it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to recite as the claimed invention in claim 14. Accordingly, the claim is deemed to be indefinite.
With respect to claim 17: Claim 17 recites “the view module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the limitation as reciting “the business process view module.”
With respect to claims 18-20: Since the claims depend from claim 17, they are also rejected under §112, second paragraph, for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 17: The claims recite (e.g., “a set of one or more tangible computer readable storage media having stored thereon a business process software for working with a model of a business process made up of an ordered and hierarchically organized set of tasks, the business process software comprising….”), which are statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claims 1, 12 and 17 recite a judicial exception, as highlighted below:
(Claims 1, 12 and 17):
A business process made up of an ordered and hierarchically organized set of tasks, comprising:
… allow a user to edit the model of the business process;
generate a tabular view of at least a portion of the model of the business process.
filter tasks shown in the view generated based on a pattern/attributes by the user.
The recited limitations pertain to managing a business process model, which fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas since the steps relate to commercial or legal interactions, and business relations and/or also relates to managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions and following certain rules/instructions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). Thus the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Step 2A [prong 2] addresses whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A prong two. Limitations that may indicate whether an abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claims 1, 12 and 17 pertain to recite data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 17 include “a set of one or more tangible computer readable storage media having stored thereon a business process software comprising: a business process editing module programmed to … a tabular view module programmed to…” (claim 1), additionally “and a pattern based filter module programmed to…” (claim 12), and “a business process view module programmed to … and an attribute based filter module programmed to…” (claim 17) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because additional elements do not provide beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits at all.
In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by generic computer processor and memory components recited at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. In light of the Specification, there is no indication that the claimed steps performed by the recited additional elements require any specialized computer hardware or particular machine, or invoke any inventive programming. Neither the specification nor the claims disclose a particular machine. The applicants’ specification merely describes generic computers, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions. The limitations describe the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and do not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement”). The additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e). Furthermore, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098.
The Supreme Court made clear in Alice that the mere recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding Step 2B,
Step 2B addresses whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
The claims do not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea under step 2B. The federal courts identified certain computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Such computer functions include “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” The limitations previously identified as reciting data gathering and data output also describe the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Those limitations do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the examiner reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Finally, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claims do not contain any inventive concept or adds anything significantly more to transform the abstract idea recited in the claims into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20, these dependent claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional limitations describe the identified abstract idea and/or do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea under the Office’s current guidance on subject matter eligibility.
Claims 2, 13, and 18: The claims recite “allow a user to create a new model of a business process” and “allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized in ways suitable for collection of interrelated tasks that is designed to be performed repeatedly and further designed to achieve a commonly arising objective or goal” limitations describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims also do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “business process editing module programmed to … and business process characterization module that…” elements describe the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. The claims do not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 3: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “diagram view module programmed to generate a diagram view of the business process” limitation recites data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describes the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “diagram view module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Claim 4: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “properties pane module programmed to generate a properties pane that provides a visual representation of detailed information associated with a selected task in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module” limitation recites data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describes the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “properties pane module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Claims 5, 14, and 19: The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based on a pattern entered by the user” limitation recites data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also do not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describes the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “pattern based filter module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner also reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 6 and 15: The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based on or more attribute(s) chosen by the user” limitation recites data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also do not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describes the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “attribute based filter module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner also reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 7, 16 and 20: The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “task sorting module programmed to sort tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based upon respective values for an task field selected by the user” limitation recites data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also do not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describes the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “task sorting module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner also reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 8, 9, and 10: The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “further comprising a path analysis mode module programmed to display a timeline view for each task…,” “wherein the path analysis module is further programmed to display a start time for each task…,” and “wherein the path analysis mode module is further programmed to display parallel timelines in the timeline view for tasks that run in parallel” limitations recite data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims also do not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations describe the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not add significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “path analysis mode module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 11: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “further comprising an MS project import and export module programmed to: (i) import the model of the business process from a file formatted as an MS Project file, and (ii) export the model of the business process to a file formatted as an MS Project file” limitations recite data gathering and data output. Data gathering and data output is insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation describe the computer functions of “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “receiving or transmitting data over a network.” Such functions do not add significantly more than an abstract idea when recited in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, examiner submits the “MS Project import and export module programmed to…” element neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The element describes the technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims. Examiner also reiterates the additional element of using a computer or processor to perform the steps recited in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Pareschi (US 6725428).
With respect to claim 1: Pareschi discloses a set of one or more tangible computer readable storage media having stored thereon a business process software for working with a model of a business process made up of an ordered and hierarchically organized set of tasks, the business process software comprising (See at least Column 4, Lines 21-59):
a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit the model of the business process (See at least Colum 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”); and
a tabular view module programmed to generate a tabular view of at least a portion of the model of the business process (See at least Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 21-31: “The top right hand window 4 presents a task view, which shows the hierarchical decomposition of tasks into subtasks, in a manner similar to that in Fig. 9A. As well as including conventional buttons 12, window 4 presents a tree structure for the task under consideration. It will be appreciated that the task there displayed may comprise the entire process under consideration, or may be only a portion thereof. In the case illustrated, it can be seen that the task mr (monthly report) decomposes to the subtasks remind, writeMR and approve, the subtask writeMR decomposes to the subtasks writeCT, writeMLTT and merge, and so on.”).
With respect to claim 3: Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1 further comprising a diagram view module programmed to generate a diagram view of the business process (See at least Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 14-20: “In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, to support the GPSG formalism a user interface 2 is provided, as shown in FIG. 13, which guides the modeler in exploring the process space defined by a given grammar. It is will be seen that there may be displayed (independently of one another) four windows 4, 6, 8, 10, the windows showing several views of the process.” See also Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”).
With respect to claim 8: Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1 further comprising a path analysis mode module programmed to display a timeline view for each task displayed in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module (See at least Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 32-45: “The second view, presented in bottom right hand window 6, is a time view, which shows the temporal dependencies between tasks. In this case, the (bottom level) subtasks – remind, writeCT, writeMLTT, merge, and doApprove – are at discrete points on the vertical axis, with time (on suitable scale at the viewer’s choice, e.g., weeks) on the horizontal axis. Blocks 62-70 represent durations of the subtasks. By selecting with pointer 72 (operated by a conventional mouse, not shown) the vertical line 74 (which defines the endpoint of the task / process mr), various scenarios can be investigated. In this case, it can be seen that the endpoint has been moved from week 11 to week 10. The process grammar is consequently modified to reflect the change in deadline value thus input by the user.”).
With respect to claim 9: Pareschi discloses the set of claim 8 wherein the path analysis mode module is further programmed to display a start time for each task displayed in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module (See at least Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 32-38: “The second view, presented in bottom right hand window 6, is a time view, which shows the temporal dependencies between tasks. In this case, the (bottom level) subtasks – remind, writeCT, writeMLTT, merge, and doApprove – are at discrete points on the vertical axis, with time (on suitable scale at the viewer’s choice, e.g., weeks) on the horizontal axis. Blocks 62-70 represent durations of the subtasks.” See also Column 14, Lines 1-5: “The user can interact with the system through these views by adding constraints (step s4), for example to further constrain (or assign) the start and end times of a task, or to bound the number of resources (step s6) available at some point, or to assign a feature.”).
With respect to claim 10: Pareschi discloses the set of claim 8 wherein the path analysis mode module is further programmed to display parallel timelines in the timeline view for tasks that run in parallel (See at least Figure 13 for showing a time view that displays timelines for each subtask, where subtasks 64 and 66 run parallel to each other at least for periods 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Note: In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Srinivasan (US 7451403).
With respect to claim 2: Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1 further comprising: a business process model creation module programmed to allow a user to create a new model of a business process (See at least Column 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from the process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on the GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Figure 13; Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”).
Although Pareschi may not specify, however, Srinivasan discloses a business process characterization module that allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized in ways suitable for a collection of interrelated tasks that is designed to be performed repeatedly and further designed to achieve a commonly arising objective or goal (See at least Figures 9, 11, and 14; Column 14, Lines 30-33: “UI Tool Palette 1105 comprises a number of flow components including but not limited to, Selection 1401 … Loop Object 1413, End Loop component 1415….” See also Column 16, Lines 42-59: “Loop Object 1413 enables the application designer to model repetitive execution of tasks in within a process. The application designer specifies the meta-data for this component using the screenshot shown in FIG. 20. The application designer specifies a name for the instance of Loop Object 1413 using a Name field 2001. Using an Exit Condition box 2003 the application designer specifies the termination condition for the loop. To define the termination of the loop, the designer has two options—a Number of Iterations option 2005 and a Rule/DT option 2007. Number of Iterations option 2005 defines the termination when the number of iterations in the loop reaches the defined value. Rule/DT option 2007 defines the termination of the loop on the occurrence of a condition specified in a rule. This rule is selected using a Select Rule/DT button 2009. Using this button, the user selects an existing rule. This rule, an instance of Rule component 1405, is defined by the application designer in the manner described with reference to FIG. 17 and FIG. 18.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include interface elements that enable users to add loops to link tasks in a business process as taught by Srinivasan in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Srinivasan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of “generating a representation of a work process” as needed in Pareschi at Column 3, Lines 10-11. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Gauger (Pub. No. 2007/0192156).
With respect to claim 4: Although Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1, the reference does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gauger discloses further comprising a properties pane module programmed to generate a properties pane that provides a visual representation of detailed information associated with a selected task in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module (See at least Paragraph 0162: “When the task detail operator is selected, a list of tasks will be displayed. Double clicking on a particular task will launch the task detail form shown in FIG. 13…. Clicking on any item will display the detail form of the task at that date.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to display a task detail form after selecting a particular task as described by Gauger in Pareschi’s invention. As indicated by Gauger, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
With respect to claim 7: Although Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1, the reference does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gauger discloses further comprising a task sorting module programmed to sort tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based upon respective values for an task field selected by the user (See at least Paragraphs 0072-73: “Sort—The sort button, when pushed, displays a pop-up screen (see FIG. 39) that allows team members to select the sort and filter criteria for the particular information module that is active. The sort functionality is similar for each module…. In general, the sort functionality allows team members to filter information, sort information, or both through a series of up to 4 metadata manipulations. Each manipulation box has a choice of sort or filter; if sort, ascending or descending; if filter, exclude or include.” See also Paragraph 0158: “The task manager information module displays information in such a way that team members may use it in a visual management style.” See also Paragraph 0160: “Opening the task manager information module 32 will invoke the task list screen also shown in FIG. 2. The module operators in the task list screen include a task list which will display the entire lists of tasks sorted in the order defined in the personal preferences corresponding to the active view.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features that enable users to sort tasks shown in a tabular view as taught by Gauger in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Gauger, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claims 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Elaasar (US 7890923).
With respect to claim 5: Although Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1, the reference does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Elaasar discloses further comprising a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based on a pattern entered by the user (See at least Column 3, Lines 34-46: “In a preferred embodiment, a computer system and method for detecting patterns in structured models, comprising the steps of: obtaining a pattern specification of a subject pattern, the pattern specification (a) defining the subject pattern as a meta-class in a target domain, and (b) specifying one or more pattern roles as meta-properties of the subject pattern; and using the pattern specification, navigating user models, each user model having respective model elements. The navigating step includes looking for structures of model elements that fulfill the pattern roles, and returning conforming pattern instances as detected instances of the subject pattern.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to detect patterns in structured models as described by Elaasar in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Elaasar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
With respect to claim 12: Pareschi discloses a set of one or more tangible computer readable storage media having stored thereon a business process software for working with a model of a business process made up of a hierarchically organized set of tasks, the business process software comprising (See at least Column 4, Lines 21-59):
a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit the model of the business process (See at least Colum 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”);
a view module programmed to generate a view of at least a portion of the model of the business process (See also Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 14-45: “In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, to support the GPSG formalism a user interface 2 is provided, as shown in FIG. 13, which guides the modeler in exploring the process space defined by a given grammar. It is will be seen that there may be displayed (independently of one another) four windows 4, 6, 8, 10, the windows showing several views of the process. The top right hand window 4 presents a task view, which shows the hierarchical decomposition of tasks into subtasks, in a manner similar to that in Fig. 9A…. The second view, presented in bottom right hand window 6, is a time view, which shows the temporal dependencies between tasks….”).
Pareschi does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Elaasar discloses a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based on a pattern entered by the user (See at least Column 3, Lines 34-46: “In a preferred embodiment, a computer system and method for detecting patterns in structured models, comprising the steps of: obtaining a pattern specification of a subject pattern, the pattern specification (a) defining the subject pattern as a meta-class in a target domain, and (b) specifying one or more pattern roles as meta-properties of the subject pattern; and using the pattern specification, navigating user models, each user model having respective model elements. The navigating step includes looking for structures of model elements that fulfill the pattern roles, and returning conforming pattern instances as detected instances of the subject pattern.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to detect patterns in structured models as described by Elaasar in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Elaasar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
With respect to claim 14: Claim 14 recites the same limitation as claim 12. Thus, the arguments applied to claim 12 also apply to claim 14.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Gane (US 5212771).
With respect to claim 6: Although Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1, the reference does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gane discloses further comprising an attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the tabular view generated by the tabular view module based on one or more attribute(s) chosen by the user (See at least Column 21, Lines 15-42: “A user may also define and implement filters. A filter allows a user to view and operate on a subset of a model. The objects that are included in a subset, or filtered model, are determined by selection criteria defined by a user when the filter is created. In the preferred embodiment, multiple filters may be created for the same model, however only one filter can be active at a time. For example, if a user wants to display objects created by a specific user and also display objects of a certain type, two filters can be defined, each including those respective objects. Both of these filters would be applied to the same original model, but they would each produce a subset of that model. When using the filters, if a diagram is displayed when a filter is activated, the filter takes effect immediately. That is, all objects which do not meet the selection criteria of the filter are automatically cleared from that diagram. It may be possible to implicitly include objects when an object is explicitly selected to be included in a filtered model. For example, if an information flow is the selection criteria of the filter, the objects that are the source and destination of that flow are implicitly selected, but not associated subordinate objects, such as flow structures. Similarly, when a diagram of a filtered model is displayed, objects that meet the filter selection criteria are displayed, along with any objects upon which their existence may depend.” Examiner defines attributes to include data specifying whether objects are “created by a specific user” and “certain type” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to define and implement attribute-based filters as described by Gane in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Gane, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Examiner also submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the motivation of offering a system to “create and manipulate subprocesses of existing processes” as taught by Gane over Pareschi. Gane Column 3, Lines 14-15.
With respect to claim 17: Pareschi discloses a set of one or more tangible computer readable storage media having stored thereon a business process software for working with a model of a business process made up of a hierarchically organized set of tasks, the business process software comprising (See at least Column 4, Lines 21-59):
a business process editing module programmed to allow a user to edit the model of the business process (See at least Colum 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”);
a business process view module programmed to generate a view of at least a portion of the model of the business process (See also Figure 13; Column 12, Lines 14-45: “In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention, to support the GPSG formalism a user interface 2 is provided, as shown in FIG. 13, which guides the modeler in exploring the process space defined by a given grammar. It is will be seen that there may be displayed (independently of one another) four windows 4, 6, 8, 10, the windows showing several views of the process. The top right hand window 4 presents a task view, which shows the hierarchical decomposition of tasks into subtasks, in a manner similar to that in Fig. 9A…. The second view, presented in bottom right hand window 6, is a time view, which shows the temporal dependencies between tasks….”).
Pareschi does not explicitly teach the remaining limitation. However, Gane discloses an attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based on one or more attribute(s) chosen by the user (See at least Column 21, Lines 15-42: “A user may also define and implement filters. A filter allows a user to view and operate on a subset of a model. The objects that are included in a subset, or filtered model, are determined by selection criteria defined by a user when the filter is created. In the preferred embodiment, multiple filters may be created for the same model, however only one filter can be active at a time. For example, if a user wants to display objects created by a specific user and also display objects of a certain type, two filters can be defined, each including those respective objects. Both of these filters would be applied to the same original model, but they would each produce a subset of that model. When using the filters, if a diagram is displayed when a filter is activated, the filter takes effect immediately. That is, all objects which do not meet the selection criteria of the filter are automatically cleared from that diagram. It may be possible to implicitly include objects when an object is explicitly selected to be included in a filtered model. For example, if an information flow is the selection criteria of the filter, the objects that are the source and destination of that flow are implicitly selected, but not associated subordinate objects, such as flow structures. Similarly, when a diagram of a filtered model is displayed, objects that meet the filter selection criteria are displayed, along with any objects upon which their existence may depend.” Examiner defines attributes to include data specifying whether objects are “created by a specific user” and “certain type” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to define and implement attribute-based filters as described by Gane in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Gane, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Examiner also submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the motivation of offering a system to “create and manipulate subprocesses of existing processes” as taught by Gane over Pareschi. Gane Column 3, Lines 14-15.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Blair (Pub. No. 2006/0041503).
With respect to claim 11: Although Pareschi discloses the set of claim 1, the reference does not teach the remaining limitation. However, Blair discloses further comprising an MS Project import and export module programmed to: (i) import the model of the business process from a file formatted as an MS Project file, and (ii) export the model of the business process to a file formatted as an MS Project file (See at least Paragraph 0244: “The project management module 440 also may include … the capability to import/export external project plans that are configured in various file formats such as, for example, Microsoft Project.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to import business process models from files that are formatted as MS Project files and export business process models to files that are formatted as MS Project files as taught by Blair in Pareschi’s invention. As demonstrated by Blair, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in Pareschi’s invention with the predictable result of “generating a representation of a work process” as needed in Pareschi at Column 3, Lines 10-11. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Elaasar and in view of Srinivasan.
With respect to claim 13: Although the combination of Pareschi and Elaasar references discloses the set of claim 12 further comprising: a business process model creation module programmed to allow a user to create a new model of a business (See at least Column 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from the process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on the GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Figure 13; Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”).
The references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Srinivasan discloses a business process characterization module that allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized in ways suitable for a collection of interrelated tasks that is designed to be performed repeatedly and further designed to achieve a commonly arising objective or goal (See at least Figures 9, 11, and 14; Column 14, Lines 30-33: “UI Tool Palette 1105 comprises a number of flow components including but not limited to, Selection 1401 … Loop Object 1413, End Loop component 1415….” See also Column 16, Lines 42-59: “Loop Object 1413 enables the application designer to model repetitive execution of tasks in within a process. The application designer specifies the meta-data for this component using the screenshot shown in FIG. 20. The application designer specifies a name for the instance of Loop Object 1413 using a Name field 2001. Using an Exit Condition box 2003 the application designer specifies the termination condition for the loop. To define the termination of the loop, the designer has two options—a Number of Iterations option 2005 and a Rule/DT option 2007. Number of Iterations option 2005 defines the termination when the number of iterations in the loop reaches the defined value. Rule/DT option 2007 defines the termination of the loop on the occurrence of a condition specified in a rule. This rule is selected using a Select Rule/DT button 2009. Using this button, the user selects an existing rule. This rule, an instance of Rule component 1405, is defined by the application designer in the manner described with reference to FIG. 17 and FIG. 18.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to further include interface elements that enable users to add loops to link tasks in a business process as taught by Srinivasan in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Srinivasan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of “generating a representation of a work process” as needed in Pareschi at Column 3, Lines 10-11. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Elaasar and in view of Gane.
With respect to claim 15: Although the combination of Pareschi and Elaasar references discloses the set of claim 12, the references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gane discloses further comprising an attribute based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based on one or more attribute(s) chosen by the user (See at least Column 21, Lines 15-42: “A user may also define and implement filters. A filter allows a user to view and operate on a subset of a model. The objects that are included in a subset, or filtered model, are determined by selection criteria defined by a user when the filter is created. In the preferred embodiment, multiple filters may be created for the same model, however only one filter can be active at a time. For example, if a user wants to display objects created by a specific user and also display objects of a certain type, two filters can be defined, each including those respective objects. Both of these filters would be applied to the same original model, but they would each produce a subset of that model. When using the filters, if a diagram is displayed when a filter is activated, the filter takes effect immediately. That is, all objects which do not meet the selection criteria of the filter are automatically cleared from that diagram. It may be possible to implicitly include objects when an object is explicitly selected to be included in a filtered model. For example, if an information flow is the selection criteria of the filter, the objects that are the source and destination of that flow are implicitly selected, but not associated subordinate objects, such as flow structures. Similarly, when a diagram of a filtered model is displayed, objects that meet the filter selection criteria are displayed, along with any objects upon which their existence may depend.” Examiner defines attributes to include data specifying whether objects are “created by a specific user” and “certain type” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include technical features to define and implement attribute-based filters as described by Gane in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Gane, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the motivation of offering a system to “create and manipulate subprocesses of existing processes” as taught by Gane over the previously cited references. Gane Column 3, Lines 14-15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Elaasar and in view of Gauger.
With respect to claim 16: Although the combination of Pareschi and Elaasar references discloses the set of claim 12, the references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gauger discloses further comprising a task sorting module programmed to sort tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based upon respective values for an tasks field selected by the user (See at least Paragraphs 0072-73: “Sort—The sort button, when pushed, displays a pop-up screen (see FIG. 39) that allows team members to select the sort and filter criteria for the particular information module that is active. The sort functionality is similar for each module…. In general, the sort functionality allows team members to filter information, sort information, or both through a series of up to 4 metadata manipulations. Each manipulation box has a choice of sort or filter; if sort, ascending or descending; if filter, exclude or include.” See also Paragraph 0158: “The task manager information module displays information in such a way that team members may use it in a visual management style.” See also Paragraph 0160: “Opening the task manager information module 32 will invoke the task list screen also shown in FIG. 2. The module operators in the task list screen include a task list which will display the entire lists of tasks sorted in the order defined in the personal preferences corresponding to the active view.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to further include technical features that enable users to sort tasks shown in a tabular view as taught by Gauger in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Gauger, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Gane and in view of Srinivasan.
With respect to claim 18: The combination of Pareschi and Gane references discloses the set of claim 17 further comprising: a business model creation module programmed to allow a user to create a new model of a business process (See at least Column 5, Lines 21-33: “When the user wants to define a process template using the GPSG approach, s/he constructs a process grammar which specifies the lexicon of process objects (e.g., activities, documents, roles) and the rules to combine them. A process instance is any legal phrase generated from the process grammar during simulation or enactment. Indeed, a process grammar template defines a process space, a potentially infinite number of process instances. As a result, the flexibility of work representations based on the GPSG formalism is much greater because the designer can specify the constraints of the process and the rules to define what is allowed and what is not allowed, rather than the exact sequence (and alternatives) of activities and events.” See also Figure 13; Column 13, Lines 4-10: “Finally window 10 presents a text-based grammar editor for entering the process grammar discussed in detail above. In one respect, the GSPG grammar driving the simulation process can itself be seen as a set of constraints which can be added, removed, modified. The user can interact in a simulation, namely a through this “process template” view displaying the current state of the simulation.”).
The references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Srinivasan discloses a business process characterization module that allows features of the model of the business process to be characterized in ways suitable for a collection of interrelated tasks that is designed to be performed repeatedly and further designed to achieve a commonly arising objective or goal (See at least Figures 9, 11, and 14; Column 14, Lines 30-33: “UI Tool Palette 1105 comprises a number of flow components including but not limited to, Selection 1401 … Loop Object 1413, End Loop component 1415….” See also Column 16, Lines 42-59: “Loop Object 1413 enables the application designer to model repetitive execution of tasks in within a process. The application designer specifies the meta-data for this component using the screenshot shown in FIG. 20. The application designer specifies a name for the instance of Loop Object 1413 using a Name field 2001. Using an Exit Condition box 2003 the application designer specifies the termination condition for the loop. To define the termination of the loop, the designer has two options—a Number of Iterations option 2005 and a Rule/DT option 2007. Number of Iterations option 2005 defines the termination when the number of iterations in the loop reaches the defined value. Rule/DT option 2007 defines the termination of the loop on the occurrence of a condition specified in a rule. This rule is selected using a Select Rule/DT button 2009. Using this button, the user selects an existing rule. This rule, an instance of Rule component 1405, is defined by the application designer in the manner described with reference to FIG. 17 and FIG. 18.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to further include interface elements that enable users to add loops to link tasks in a business process as taught by Srinivasan in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Srinivasan, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of “generating a representation of a work process” as needed in Pareschi at Column 3, Lines 10-11. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Gane and in view of Elaasar.
With respect to claim 19: Although the combination of Pareschi and Gane references discloses the set of claim 17, the references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Elaasar discloses further comprising a pattern based filter module programmed to filter tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based on a pattern entered by the user (See at least Column 3, Lines 34-46: “In a preferred embodiment, a computer system and method for detecting patterns in structured models, comprising the steps of: obtaining a pattern specification of a subject pattern, the pattern specification (a) defining the subject pattern as a meta-class in a target domain, and (b) specifying one or more pattern roles as meta-properties of the subject pattern; and using the pattern specification, navigating user models, each user model having respective model elements. The navigating step includes looking for structures of model elements that fulfill the pattern roles, and returning conforming pattern instances as detected instances of the subject pattern.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to further include technical features to detect patterns in structured models as described by Elaasar in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Elaasar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pareschi in view of Gane and in view of Gauger.
With respect to claim 20: Although the combination of Pareschi and Gane references discloses the set of claim 17, the references do not teach the remaining limitation. However, Gauger discloses further comprising a task sorting module programmed to sort tasks shown in the view generated by the view module based upon respective values for an task field selected by the user (See at least Paragraphs 0072-73: “Sort—The sort button, when pushed, displays a pop-up screen (see FIG. 39) that allows team members to select the sort and filter criteria for the particular information module that is active. The sort functionality is similar for each module…. In general, the sort functionality allows team members to filter information, sort information, or both through a series of up to 4 metadata manipulations. Each manipulation box has a choice of sort or filter; if sort, ascending or descending; if filter, exclude or include.” See also Paragraph 0158: “The task manager information module displays information in such a way that team members may use it in a visual management style.” See also Paragraph 0160: “Opening the task manager information module 32 will invoke the task list screen also shown in FIG. 2. The module operators in the task list screen include a task list which will display the entire lists of tasks sorted in the order defined in the personal preferences corresponding to the active view.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to further include technical features that enable users to sort tasks shown in a tabular view as taught by Gauger in the combination of references. As demonstrated by Gauger, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include such features in the combination of references with the predictable result of allowing users to “interact with the system through these views” as needed in Pareschi at Column 14, Lines 1-5. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moore (US 20070027909) Methods and apparatus for comparison of projects, with structure and status of multiple processes are displayed jointly. Multiple visualization mechanisms are used to provide the visualization of business process data to provide a comparison of multiple processes together. Drill-down of the data provides interactivity for a user to access information about one or more of the processes.
Yamamoto (US 8630887) discloses a business process flowchart editing program and business process flowchart editing method for editing a business process flowchart.
J. G. García, J. Vanderdonckt, C. Lemaige and J. M. G. Calleros, "How to Describe Workflow Information Systems to Support Business Process," 2008 10th IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology and the Fifth IEEE Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services, Arlington, VA, USA, 2008, pp. 404-411, doi: 10.1109/CECandEEE.2008.128.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629